The Helical Model – vortex solar system animation






Get the soundtrack here for free: http://www.djsadhu.com/audio-video/vortex-solar-system-instrumental/

Forget the old heliocentric model – our solar system is a vortex!

The old Newtonion/Copernican Heliocentric model of our solar system is an unproven theory.
A bright fellow named Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat came up with quite a different way to think of our Solar System.

There are a couple of reasons why I think this model could just be right.

First of all, the heliocentrical model has always been presented (especially by NASA) as a “frisbee” model.


NASA frisbee model
[image taken from here]

Think about this for a minute. In this diagram it seems the Solar System travel to the left. When the Earth is also traveling to the left (for half a year) it must go faster than the Sun. Then in the second half of the year, it travels in a “relative opposite direction” so it must go slower than the Sun. Then, after completing one orbit, it must increase speed to overtake the Sun in half a year. And this would go for all the planets. Just like any point you draw on a frisbee will not have a constant speed, neither will any planet.

Secondly, most planets are visible throughout the entire year. In a “flat” model, every single planet would hide behind the Sun at least once a year. They don’t. Now the heliocentric model isn’t entirely flat, but mostly.



IF the travel direction of the Solar System is “up” or “down” – why haven’t I heard from this in my entire life? Why do I need to run into the dr Bhat material to see the “spiral” for the first time? The opposition is divided into two groups: one group thinks the helical model is wrong, the other group says that there’s no or little difference with the current model – very curious.

UPDATE: the FIRST NASA image that shows it like it is

Finally I found ONE image from NASA that shows the angle and travel direction of our solar system:

Finally!!

Consequences

Fact of the matter is that if the helical model is correct and our Solar System is a traveling vortex, it will change how we feel about our journey. For me personally the heliocentric model feels like a useless merry-go-round: after one year we are back to square one. The helical model feels much more like progress, growth, a journey through space in which we never ever come back to our starting point. We are NOT in a big marry-go-round. We are on a journey.

A circle is a spiral with the progress taken out

And then I get very suspicious because this kind of tricks have been used before.
Compare the Mayan calendar with the Gregorian one: the Mayan calendar has an intricate system to guide you in your personal spiritual evolution and growth. It has days for making new friends, days for self-reflection, and so on. If you were to live by this calendar, you would never stop moving forwards.



The Gregorian calendar on the other hand tells you only a few things: your week starts at Monday, you’re free on Saturday and Sunday, and you work till you drop dead. Very handy if you’re part of the establishment, not very useful if you’re an individual looking for ways to better yourself.




Related YouTube videos

Links and resources

planets visible throughout the year.

Download the original “Helical Helix PDF” from dr Bhat (24Mb).

Mayan Calendar explained

Gregorian calendar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex

http://www.halfpasthuman.com/models.html
http://www.halfpasthuman.com/noodles.html
http://www.halfpasthuman.com/nailstochew.html

http://www.gravitycontrol.org/forum/index.php?topic=471.msg4473#msg4473

http://www.google.nl/search?q=vortex+solar+system

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/golden-ratio

222 thoughts on “The Helical Model – vortex solar system animation”

  1. I find this very interesting and logical. However, I am a neophyte when it comes to astronomy and astrophysics but I do have a question. If this were the case and we were traveling so fast as a Solar System, would not our view of the stars change drastically over the years? I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks!

    Great video!

    Joe

  2. Even the nearest star Alpha Centauri is 4.2 lightyears from us (appr 25 trillion miles), so a couple of years would not be enough to see anything change. Just like things on the horizon seem not to move when you travel on the highway.

  3. Actually, the heliocentric model is still correct, everything is just a matter of your point of view. If you take the solar system as a frame of reference, it works perfectly fine. Now if you watch from outside, you see the sun moving with the planets behind, like you animated it. And if you go one step further, you see how the sun orbits the center of the milky way galaxy, which in itself races through space in the Virgo Supercluster, su you would have a vortex within a vortex within a vortex and so on. Very nice work on the animation though 😉

  4. I agree with Joe’s comment about the star patterns. Yes, they wouldn’t change after a couple of years (like you said), but the same star patterns have been around for not just a “couple” years, it’s been literally thousands.

  5. Well, It seems to be all right. But…
    It would require the Sun to be accelerating all the time. Because it is like the explanation of gravity using lift. When the lift falls down with you inside, you feel weightlessness. If you would spin yo-yo around you, it would be orbiting around you and everybody watching you would be seeing the yo-yo orbiting and not fluttering behind, like in this animation.
    But if planets and sun would be leaving some sort of dust behind, it would create this vortex.

  6. The heliocentric model isn’t ‘wrong’ as such, it is just the model as seen from a difference reference frame. The sun doesn’t ‘drag’ the planets along, they are moving with the same tangential velocity around the galactic centre as the sun, and the sun accelerates them inwards towards itself. This is basic Newtonian physics..

    This model really isn’t any breakthrough, just a view of the solar system from a non-stationary point from our reference frame, or what could be called a stationary point in the galaxy.

    Regardless of the small bits and pieces of misleading information (our speed through space for example, is dependent entirely on the viewers reference frame), thank you for an interesting animation!!

  7. I imagina it like this: if the planets are stuck in movement around the sun trough gravitational forces then the sun is also stuck in a even bigger movement inside the galaxy. Everything is locked in its perfectly balanced system until the balance is in some way broken, then patterns change and fall back into new and stable patterns, and so it goes on forever.

  8. Hi, can I suggest something missing, and that will make this subject even more interesting? Picture this, most stars are binary, meaning two solar systems turning around each other, an extraordinary representation of the double helix DNA 😀 … please make a video simulating this, its extraordinary. Thank You

  9. This more dynamic rendering of our movement thru space is actually quite important. When scientists speak of 12-dimensional space we needn’t think of this as abstract. We are used to thinking of “dimensions” as linear. In fact, each is spiral. What looks like a straight line when we draw it on paper is actually a curve on the curved earth. Then the earth itself spins. Then, as we see the earth takes a spiral trajectory thru space. The solar system as well takes a spiral trajectory. If we think in terms of length, width, and depth at each astral level, it doesn’t take long to get to 12 dimensions. So great to begin to see this in moving animation. I refer all to a series of fabulous books exploring exactly this subject of the spiral universe, authored by Vladimir Ginzburg, He coined the term “helicola.”

  10. Do you really think astronoms don’t know the real movement of the solar system ?! ( relatif aux autres composants of universe )
    If so, i invite you to interest to astronomy, you will be astonished

    I notice you too, neglect movements ! :

    The solar system does’nt goes straight forward, it turns around center of the galaxy.
    The galaxy itself is not immobil
    Our galactic group is not immobil.
    etc…
    I think you need notions of galilean relativity, then Einstein relativity !

  11. Marshall Brain on HowStuffWorks dot com claims that the solar system speed is 4,383,610 KPH
    or 2,724,666 MPH
    How can our Sun be traveling at a snail’s pace of 70K kph if this is true? Somebody’s math is off.
    Either way, vortex is totally believable. we’re blazin’!

  12. Being part of such an amazing planetary time, means we as humankind can dump all the old paradigm…it’s time to stand in our power, our truth, as ‘spirit beings…
    White Elk Medicine Woman

  13. The sun and planets, do in fact leave a vapor trail as the gases blow off of them and it’s confirmed by interstellar vehicles slingshoting behind the sun.

    When a fly inside a car is buzzing forward, his tracking above the road is accelerating, so he is exceeding the forward momentum of the car. When he flies the opposite way his speed drops relatively, and in that direction decelerates. His constant flight speed when examined, is relative to the viewpoint.

    It will be interesting to find what Voyager discovers in the Heliopause as to a perspective of what that fly in my car experiences. >)
    Thanks, everybody for riding in our car!

  14. Let’s see… the movement of the Solar system around the galaxy is known since over a century. It may have not happened in your case, but I was taught about it while in school, which may explain why you consider it new.
    The helical model is… different, yes, but does it really add anything to the current Solar system model? Well, let’s start talking about the current Solar system model, which you mistake with something already discarded centuries ago. The current model puts every body orbiting around the Sun in what amounts to an ellipse. This is known at least since the 18th century, as is known that the orbital planes of the different planets aren’t exactly the same. So the planets actually speed up and slow down without any need of taking what happens outside the heliosphere into account, and they do in different ways because they are at different distances from the sun and at sligtly different angles. Beware: a “sligtly different angle” can translate into quite a distance when you multiply by the distance between the Sun and the planets. So you can have more than a year between transits behind the sun, the same way Venus’ transits across the Sun aren’t regular either.
    Let’s bring all this to more manageable terms. You worry about the planetary velocities changing when you look at the Solar system from outside. Why does that surprise you at all? The satellites around the planets do the exact same thing, and you don’t seem to think about it being surprising. Why is it surprising that the Sun’s satellites (namely, the planets) speed up and slow down when using the galaxy as a reference system? Why aren’t you surprised by the fact that each planet’s orbit is affected by the other planets (the reason we have an asteroid belt is Jupiter’s gravity breaking up any attempt for a planet to grow up in that orbit)?
    Of course, once you notice that the movement of the Solar system around the galaxy is basically irrelevant at our scale, your comments about the Mayan calendar fall into the grave they should never have risen from. You don’t need Mayan calendars to better yourself, you don’t need an helical Solar system model. You need to have curiosity, and the will to fulfill it with up to date knowledge. The “flat Solar system” model is outdated, the movement around the galaxy center is known since a long time, and the helical model is as useful for in-system calculations as the movement of the planets is for intra-atmospheric calculations (i.e., not useful at all).

  15. Honestly, there is little that’s truly new here – it’s just another way of looking at the heliocentric model. It’s a different perspective for the layperson, yes, but it’s nothing unusual or unheard of for the body of science.

    For those who have asked why the stars seem the same, you’re just looking at them with the wrong perspective. The thousands of years of human history are not enough time for the stars to have moved noticeably, given the vast distances and speeds involved in stellar motion. Add in the fact that most of the stars that are visible to the naked eye are also moving in roughly similar orbits around the galatic core to our own, and it’s easy to see why they haven’t changed visibly very much.

  16. Those of you who believe that this Helical movement is a matter of perspective from the vantage point of an observer haven’t got a clue. Your “belief” in Newtonian science is what is distorting your understanding in knowing what exactly is happening here. The gravity based universe that you base your thinking on is incomplete and incorrect and because of this your perception of the model of our solar systems motion is some fixed orbit of planets that circle a large body because of your belief in GRAVITY being a FORCE upon itself. You are understanding an EFFECT to be a CAUSE. Gravity is NOT a force upon itself, nor is it a CAUSE, but an effect of twin opposing vortex will dual aspects generated by electricity, the only true force that exists. Electricity is effect of strain, tension and resistance which is one aspect of the dual aspects. The other aspect of the single force is Magnetism which is the straining, elastic reaction to the motion of electricity. Twin opposing aspects of the same force each becoming the other. This universe is not a one way universe it is a two way motion universe. Nassim Haramein is a fraud and is plagiarizing Walter Russell and Viktor Schauberger. In fact he is trying to using Quantum Quackery to explain Walter Russell and Viktor Schauberger’s work which does not even make sense. Russellian Science is based on Sacred Geometry and doesn’t rely on academic agenda based on false teachings of the illusion of effect, recording effects of motion, in turn memorizing guesses which create false academic theories like, gravity being a force on itself, the Nuclear Atom, Quantum Quackery, strong force, weak force, dark matter. The deliberate omission of the natural cyclical motions of the natural universe by social engineers serving the energy barons in hopes to continue to enslave the minds of humankind in order that we may serve them. Anyone wishing to free their minds from the corporate controlled machine and their priesthood that have replaced, science with psyence should start reading DB Larson, Walter Russell, and the works of Viktor Schauberger. Someone by the name of 77GSlinger introduced me to Russellian Science. Godspeed.

  17. Since the Earth is turning on itself, it acts like a gyroscope which points in the same direction however you turn it around.

    Since the Sun goes around the galaxy in 250 millions years, the Earth has to move for 125 million years in the general direction of the North Pole and 125 million years in the general direction of the South pole.

    It would be great if you could do you animation again, but make it do one complete circle around the galaxy. I’d like to understand how the plane of rotation of the Earth behaves relative to the direction of the Sun as the Sun reaches the furthest it will go in direction of the Polar star and starts moving away from it.

    Thank you

    P.S. I knew that the Sun moved around the Galaxy, but this knowledge was only in my head. Your animation made me feel it in my heart. I’m very grateful for that…

  18. You haven’t accounted for the fact that the solar plane is angled at sixty degrees when compared to the galactic plane, rather than the ninety you portray.

    1. There is no galaxy in this video. It just shows the relationship between the Sun and the planets, not between the solar system and our Milky Way. The camera angles are arbitrary.

  19. It’s a nice visualization.

    It’s technically incorrect in many ways — it’s showing the planets much too large compared to the sun, and in order to visually represent the “dragging” effect it has distorted the positions of the orbits.

    And calling this view of things “completely different” is completely wrong. Among other things, the claimed “drag” neglects the fact that the planets have momentum in the direction that the system is going, as well as orbital momentum. While it is true that the sun’s pull would be helping to maintain that against the tiny bit of resistance we get from the interstellar medium, that really is not a meaningfully significant part of the equation. (Thought experiment: Think about it as the Solar system being stationary with the interstellar medium moving past us. Mathematically equivalent.)

    Good observation! But incorrect conclusions drawn. Sorry. Try again, and next time do some basic sanity-check of your theory before publishing; there are lots of folks on the web who have the expertise to do so, and believe it or not they would welcome a new model if it was useful. This one, alas, isn’t.

  20. ~*~ Also the sun does NOT travel in a staight line , rather in in a wave shaped tragectory or likely even a spiraled one one or vortexed one…
    That is what i understand , and looking foward to be better educated or informed on the subject…

  21. From ANTIPHONY: “This feeling of looking at the center of the solar system makes him think of all the movements he is undergoing even as he is standing here perfectly still—the earth rotating him away from the sun, the earth revolving him around the sun, the sun and all its planets and belts of icy rock coursing through the Local Interstellar Cloud and the Local Bubble, remnants of a relatively recent supernova, only a few hundred million years old. Through the Orion arm of the galaxy and around the center of the galaxy, which would be above him, beyond him, if he were to look up here again later tonight. He can feel the earth and the sun spinning through space, spiraling around each other in a giant helix as they hurtle along in their relative paths, all these movements spinning, spinning him up and out of himself until there is nothing left but himself, his eyes closed again for a moment, his mind empty and numb, nothing left but this tiny patch of awareness at the center of all these spiraling motions.”

  22. I’ve been very impressed by this model, but am curious about 2 possible flies in the ointment.

    1. Our moon (and other moons ) seem to have planar orbits…and

    2. Comets seem to orbit (behind) the sun.

    Am I missing something?

  23. Big Thanks for your work DJ!
    Feelin’ Ya!
    This calendar, focusing on the lunar element, is a pocket sized view of my perception of “time” as movement through space. Inspired by the 13 moon Calendar, The Argüelles interpretation of the Mayan which was what I had had some exposure to in 2007 at the time of its download/creation.
    Conveying as well the 13 tones of Creation ~ “energies of affirmation that support our evolution:
    Purpose, Challenge, Service, Form, Radiance, Equality, Attunement, Integrity, Intention, Manifestation, Liberation, Cooperation, Presence.”
    Sweet to find you and your creative gifts.

  24. Joe K, you stated “pull” and posited a thought experiment imagining a stationary solar system, so I ask, are you defending a gravity based universe?

    Lyle,

    Ask yourself if NASA has ever produced a complete 360 degree imagery of the sun? As for the moon, orbits cannot exist in a PHI spiral universe period. Ed Leedskalnin, drew out the correct motion of our solar system.

    Go to 2:48 of this video. (I have no interest in this video but only to show you an immediate example of my point.)

  25. But it is moving up or down (taking up or down from north/south Earth point of view)? Because I think it could be an important philosophical question.

  26. Dear Djsadhu,

    Thank you for your great work!
    We are an Japanese ecovillage and use heliocentric calender. We are impressed of your work.

    We translated the script into Japanese.
    Would you be interested in having captions in Japanese?

    Please let us know.

    Konohana family

    1. Dear Konohana family,

      It would honored to have Japanese version of both videos. If you would be so kind to send me the translations, I will upload both videos in Japanese.
      Please include the titles and captions. Once uploaded, I will notify you so you can check for errors. Thank you very much for your help!

      DjSadhu

  27. I’d like to see the motion of the sun and planets within the galaxy as well as the motion of the galaxy.
    GReat Animation, I love this, I can show my son not only the heliocentric orbit but the movement of the solar system and the planets

  28. “Secondly, most planets are visible throughout the entire year. In a “flat” model, every single planet would hide behind the Sun at least once a year. They don’t.”

    This seems like kind of sloppy thinking, doesn’t it? Imagine two planets with identical year lengths on a flat model: they would always be able to see each other. Slow one slightly, and they would be slightly out of phase, so they would almost always be visible to each other, certainly for longer than a year.

    1. @spinn: here’s the data:

      Mercury 88.0 days
      Venus 224.7 days
      Earth 365.2 days
      Mars 687.0 days
      Jupiter 4332 days
      Saturn 10760 days
      Uranus 30700 days
      Neptune 60200 days
      Pluto 90600 days

      I was talking about the solar system, since I mentioned the Sun. In our system the orbits are all different by a factor 2 or more, not just slightly.
      With a factor two, they should hide behind the Sun at least TWICE a year. They don’t.

  29. I would like permission for my son to use this video in his grade 3 science project. Is there anyway I could download it?
    Thank you

    1. @Ian: in my YouTube there is a download button, where you can choose the format you want to download the video in. Can you check this?
      Sure, go ahead and use it for his project. If you left my www address in the frame I would even be more thankful 😉

  30. I agree with the helical model, but what you have stated is still incomplete. The moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the Milky Way Galaxy, (as shown). But the Milky Way Galaxy also orbits (I believe it’s called) the Hercules Super Galaxy, which orbits, … which orbits, … which orbits, … … Sorry, beyond that, things so huge just boggle my small mind.

  31. Thank you SO MUCH for creating this. I had never seen a visual for this perspective of movement in celestial bodies and it was a total delight to finally have something! =D

  32. Nice videos. Bad science. The solar system is heliocentric, with the plane of the planets’ orbits tilted about 60% to the plane of the Milky Way.

    That whole spinning ensemble is then moving around the Milky Way as a tilted unit. The orientation of the tilted plane does not change relative to the Milky Way (think gyroscope and conservation of angular momentum). That means that sometimes the planets are in “front” of the Sun as it revolves around the Milky Way – other times behind it. The motion of the planets and the Sun in relation to the system revolving around the Milky Way does trace a set of coiled spirals, but not the vortex depicted with the Sun allegedly dragging the planets along.

    The same concept can be applied to the Moon, Earth and the Sun. The Moon revolves around the Earth as the Earth in turn revolves around the Sun. If you were to plot the position of the Moon and Earth as the unit revolves around the Sun, the Moon would trace a spiraling path forward around the Earth’s orbit – sometimes in front of the Earth, sometimes behind. That spiral pattern does not then negate the fact that the Earth/Moon configuration is clearly one in which the Moon revolves around the Earth.

    Its just a matter of projective geometry as to the patterns created once you plot all of the various movements involved.

    But the video and the vortex model is not correct.

  33. Just saw your post above about the planets allegedly hiding behind the Sun “twice each year.” That is wrong.

    The correct concept is that the planets each at some point are opposite the Earth and occluded (or an occultation – that is the astronomy term, but weird) by the Sun. That occurs more than once a year in the case of Mercury and Venus, but less than once a year for the outer planets. For the inner planets, they manage to race completely around and set up another alignment before a year is complete due to their speedier orbits. For the outer planets, after one year when the Earth returns to its original location, the outer planets have all moved forward a small amount, and the Earth must move forward a little further to line up with the Sun in between.

  34. I’m sorry, but there is nothing here that comes close to disproving current accepted astronomical motion models. There are so many errors in the videos and explanations that any disproof never gets started. I think that vast majority of respondents, here, as well DJ would do well to take an actual astronomy course. These videos should absolutely not be used to educate anyone.

  35. Helical model??
    Oh. My. God. That’s so wrong. I’m an amateur astronomer and I can tell you are wrong just by looking at the sky every night. Aren’t you ashamed of scamming people, disseminating false information, just to sell books? Or do you really believe that you are right about that? ‘Cause if you do.. man.. I’m in the wrong bussinnes…

    1. Nope, I don’t sell anything. I research stuff, and if I find something that is of interest, I share it with people. If you don’t agree or see it differently, more power to you. You are welcome to post your own animations on YouTube.

    1. Yeah I read the article. Part factual error correction, part emotional hype. What does David Icke have to do with this? My response is on this site, called “I’m a Dj, not a scientist, damnit!”
      Thanks though 😉

  36. So do your research better, and stop saying lies you’ve heard somewhere. If you are a DJ, stick with it. Don’t try to teach wrong things to people. Share whatever you want, but please, don’t make an effort to make people believe in the same things you do. This is wrong in so many ways…

  37. Thank you so much for your videos, I love learning about astronomy but yours seems to be the simplest to understand..Thank you!!!

  38. Dude, get a GRIP! “When the Earth is also traveling to the left (for half a year) it must go faster than the Sun. Then in the second half of the year, it travels in a “relative opposite direction” so it must go slower than the Sun.” This is nonsense! Does the Moon care about going faster or slower than the Earth in its path around the Sun? Not much; it Primary Force is the Earth’s gravity, and it ORBITS the Earth, just as our System’s Planets Orbit the Sun, with Little Regard for the Galaxy.

  39. I am not sure on the exact science, but I really enjoy the progression model! The fact that we are in fact moving through the Universe and not back to the same place over and over again is exciting. It reminds me of the Social Values model, the Spiral Dynamics Double Helix Model from the work of Clare Graves.

  40. I am a bit of a science buff, and this is awesome! I love the videos showing the sun traveling through space! It makes sense to me, but I am not a physicist by any means. I see a lot of comments trying to poke holes in your theory, just be thankful we live in a time when the worst others can do is post negative comments, not have you burned at the stake! Thanks!

  41. djsadhu, thank you for your awesome video; it helps me visualize how the universe works not like some people published papers full with extremely complicated formulas and charts that only few people understand. Many scientists, in my opinion, have even more ridiculous theories; but since they have PhD so everyone accepted without hurtful comments. Please keep up your good work, without people like you, we, the lay people, will be blinded and stupefied by fancy research papers.

  42. The universe doesn’t care how you feel about how it works. One could easily make a case for why having a predictable orbit is a better “feeling” way of thinking of the world.

  43. Your videos are amazing. AND TRUE. You are correct about Copernicus. However Newton and Descartes has discussed “vortices in space” or vortexes -by the moving mass of the planets “as tree leaves in some whirlpools of creeks” as Newton wrote. I became so excited about your VISUAL TALENT. Let me ask you: do you know what the “gyroscope effect” is? (A rotating object with the axis of rotation free of forces will keep the ABSOLUTE DIRECTION OF ROTATION IN SPACE.) You used the Galactic Orbit. Can you “see” that on the OPPOSITE SIDES of our Galactic Orbit our Earth MUST BE UPSIDE DOWN -relative to our Sun? That is the Global Gyroscope Effect. (GGE) Today “scientists” talk about Ice Ages. That is very wrong. Ice has never covered our planet fully at the same time. As Earth travels inside the Solar System the POLES are slowly wobbling and continuously moving about. Think Magnetic Reversals that are noted but unexplained. Right now the Magnetic North Pole is ACCELERATING. Few years ago it moved around 10 miles each year -wobbling North. Airlines and oceanic shipping must update their maps because of that. Now it moves around 50 miles each year. We are WITNESSING the end of the next magnetic reversal coming to an end. The Magnetic North will move into Siberia “soon.” There are tropical flora and fauna fossils under 2 miles of ICE on Antarctica! WHY? Because Antarctica was not always at the Southern Magnetic pole/rotational pole. The Equator was once crossing that continent. They say the dinosaurs were wiped out by an Ice Age 60 Million years ago. But they also say CROCODILES lived on our planet at least for 200 Million years. This cannot be true -since the eggs of the crocodiles is hatched by the Sun… Crocodiles would have died out too if ice would have covered Earth fully at once. I am almost sure you can “see” why was our planet “upside down” 150 times. This is what the BEST ESTIMATE says about how many times the Poles magnetically changed. The “problem” with that as follows: In one Galactic Orbit there were TWO Magnetic Reversals. 150 magnetic changes means 75 Galactic Orbits in Earth’s past. Multiply 75 times 200+ Million years! 15 Billion years -not 4.5 Billion years for Earth’s age! 15 Billion years would make our planet the same age as the Universe is believed to be. (around 16 Billion years estimated) I wonder: What do you think? Can you “see” the above? I believe YOU CAN. Best regards!
    Daniel a.k.a. Istvan

  44. DJ Sadhu, I totally love the superb quality of your graphics, the music for your videos, your responses and the page “i am a dj, not a scientist”. i agree with your viewpoints on the page 100%. several things are peddled to us as science, when it is in fact a religion (requires huge faith, cannot be proven in the court of law due to insufficient evidence etc) after reading most of the idiotic criticism about your video, i also struggled to find the ‘right’ video. none of your critics could point to a correct video of the solar system model.

  45. Recently there was news of our galaxy moving thru space, perpendicular to the axis of spin. i am sure if YOU had posted it first, it would have attracted lot of mindless criticism. but if some astronomer or scientist or mathematician says it, most of us simply accept it as the ultimate truth. its like no one must question them. i don’t have to be a plumber or a doctor to know when they goofed up or are taking me for a ride. science is based on questioning. even science should be questioned. i love ancient aliens series and “100 reasons why evolution is stupid” for the same reason. they are considering an alternate explanation. could be right or wrong, but lot of it makes sense to me.

  46. Hello
    I understood this in 1999. I call it now “Hypothese Ain Al Rami” or, in english language “Ain Al Rami Hypothesis” or HAAR
    Later, as you, I discover that Wilhelm Reich and Giorgio Piccardi understood the non-heliocentrism BEFORE YOU AND ME.
    But, I refuse aether and I agree with Isaac Newton’s absolute space, absolute time,

    I could be ally with partisan of (wrong) aether of Huygens. But the real struggle is NEONEWTONIST. We must understand the universe with the basis of Newton’s theory.
    Go and read De Gravitatione (written at 23 by Isaac Newton) and the Scholies.
    IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT THESIS…. WE, TOGETHER CAN CHANGE THE WORLD !!
    I was writing a text about the biology, the living, contraction , dilatation, acceleration etc…. when Google gave me you link because of Piccardi
    You can read my last text here on my blog RevActu
    http://revolisationactu.blogspot.fr/2014/02/lorigine-de-la-formation-du-vivant-il.html

  47. Everything is most likely right but its not gravity its electrical. Magnetic/Electrical the attraction and repelling is the only force strong enough to keep the massive universe in check. See The Electric Universe. The Thunderbolts guys got it going on.

  48. Thank you so much for your great animation and soundtrack.
    I was thinking about Earth’s, or better our Orbit directions so long.
    Well, I would assume: It started in the center of the Milkyway. We a now between the 6 and 7th Spiral Arm of it and passed many other Evolutions that mostly overcome Humans deadly game of Elite and War.
    Now only combine your animations and the vortex (spiral) direction and we see the endless way we should take orbiting through open space.

  49. Dear cosmic bro is fantastic… thanks 4 your intuition and manifestation… we are musician and singers and we working witn natural tuning 432Hz in total harmony with nature and sacred geometry. Do U know? This is a link of our music:

    http://youtu.be/0RztTu5lqgc

    Is a present for U! 🙂

  50. Very revolutionary and I can not wait what we will discover next in the new cycle.
    Also you could make some video about 13 Month
    28 days Calendar

  51. I am not a scientist. I was just trying to imagine the moment of planets and sun. When I start thinking about it, I was losing myself! Your video is amazing, you made me to understand the moment of sun and planets. I am grateful to you.

  52. Please clarify: if we were to “freeze-frame” the solar system, to look at it in one instant of time, would we see a flat plane or disk of planets surrounding the sun, or would we see a cone of planets trailing behind the sun?

    Thank you kindly.

  53. Please clarify: if we were to freeze the solar system in an instant minute, we would see a flat disk of planets about the sun? or a cone of planets behind/beneath the sun? If a cone, what (approximately) is the angle — a shallow, flattish cone or a steeper cone more like an ice-cream cone?

    Thank you.

  54. Try these thought experiments:

    1) With regard to the earth having to “slow down” and “catch up” if the solar system were moving parallel to its orbital plane:

    – A man is standing on the back of a flatbed truck that is traveling at a constant speed, spinning a yo-yo in a horizontal circle around him. Does this work?

    (Gravity is the yo-yo’s string, and the earth is the yo-yo.)

    2) With regard to the “vortex motion” of the planets:

    – A record player is playing on an elevator that is in motion at a constant speed. Is the record’s playing affected by the motion of the elevator?

    (The record is the rough orbital plane of the solar system, and the motion of the elevator represents the motion of our star.)

  55. Yes, as you sit watching it you are not really stationary. You are tracing out a very complicated path through the universe. So what? This point of view is of no interest to scientists, although it fascinates pig-ignorant laymen.

  56. This is a really pretty animation – but there are scientific inaccuracies in DJSadhu’s theory that are worth noting in this article in Universe Today:

    http://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex

    The article borrows from astrophysicist, Rhys Taylor to present facts behind the animation. I’m not adding my two-penneth worth to be an annoying person slamming the case presented by DJ Sadhu — I know very little about astronomy. But when you come out with a theory that is going to possibly go viral, it’s worth getting it as factually correct as possible. (From what I’ve read the term vortex is not correct but another science journalist thinks you mean instead the term helix. And our planets all travel together, we’re not being dragged by the Sun – sometimes they’re in front, sometimes behind.)

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html

  57. Sarah, please have a look at this page : http://www.djsadhu.com/research/im-a-dj-not-a-scientist-damnit/

    Slate’s sensational headline is very misleading, and panders to the ignorant masses. Slate is basically supporting what dj sadhu has shown, though with some modifications, like a squashed spring, instead of a regular one etc.

    The big question is why is the world seeing a depiction like this from a DJ and not the science heavy-weights ? Why were they silent on this aspect and showing elliptical orbits for decades, when that was clearly not the case ?

  58. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC REPORTS LIKE A CHEAP TABLOID !
    http://pixotale.com/story/50950236/

    Sometimes even scientific people and magazines can be guilty of bad reporting. This happened just a week ago. Imagine the ‘scientific’ reporting of things that happened long ago or things we didn’t witness.

  59. If you are interested, I published a peer-reviewed monograph that describes precisely the phenomena shown in your recent video ref; angularity and the vortical nature of planetary movement. It’s called “Y-Bias and Angularity: The Dynamics of Self-Organizing Criticality from the Zero Point to Infinity.” I will supply a copy if you’d like. D. Yurth

  60. The animation seems to show Sol traveling in a straight line. Wouldn’t the track be a vortex as well, perhaps around our galaxy?

  61. and the sun is going ‘straight’ like in the thingy? relative to its planets only i assume.

    70,000 kph ….relative to what? lol.

    which would indicate on the macro all atoms and groups of combined atoms held by bonds as is all molecules are moving the same way.it’s kind of amusing.

  62. ok dj. i really didn’t require a laser speed gun number.the whole solar system can be dragged into traffic court.lol.just a point of reference that the whole shebang is relative.i enjoyed the video immensely.

  63. This is not a true representation. It assumes that the planets are resisting the sun’s gravitational pull, et being draw in its trajectory as it travels. Essentially, the solar system is like a disc that acts as a whole. The sun does not move independently though space, but is, with the solar system, stuck in the the disc of the Milky Way and rotating with the other stars in our galaxy. It takes roughly 230 million years to complete one galactic year. There is also movement within our local group, our galactic cluster and the supercluster. But the vortex effect that is being shown is not real in the sense that it is being described anymore than the outer parts of the spokes of a bicycle wheel travel in a vortex in relation to the hub.

  64. Hi Don Austen, please post a link which shows visually, the correct representation of planetary orbits and solar system. Magazines like Slate & Universe Today were quick to find faults with DJ Sadhu’s depiction but failed to show the correct depiction. I could not find it anywhere on the internet. I wonder why the helical orbits of planets seems to be the best kept secret.

    1. The both videos are different in the sense that the first one (solar system) has a single point to make (why only show the “stationary” diagram?) and the second Galaxy video is full of technical stuff that can be confirmed or debunked. I have made a “corrected version” of the first solar system video, and it looks ridiculously similar – leaving the question why we only get to see the flat stationary diagrams. Maybe I’ll upload it some day.

  65. DJ Sadhu, this might inspire you. Announcement of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2014 :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbfwcroJqWM

    One of the 3 winners,Stefan Hell admits in the telephonic interview at 22nd min that he was on the verge of almost giving up 2 yrs earlier because the scientific community wasn’t very receptive to the idea of overcoming the diffraction barrier (of light, which he successfully did).

    In simple language, despite proving his theory scientifically and being able to repeat it, the
    elite scientific community refuted it and blindly believed in a phyics law discovered in 1873 !
    If he had not recieved a Nobel Prize, he would have been labelled as a pseudo-scientist and forgotten. Also, at 22:24 the panel expert says most people who are up against a physical limit do not survive professionally. Very significant words indeed.

    And we thought scientists are open-minded people, in pursuit of the truth ! If the ‘scientific’ community is so close-minded and skeptical, then you can imagine the condition of the non-scientific community, who I suspect are your biggest critics.

    This same post of mine was later moderated out of a facebook ‘science-is-great’ type of page that posted an article on ‘How Did We Become a Society Suspicious of Science’. I suspect they could not digest the ‘elite scientific club’ being shown in negative light. Is it possible that most of the scientific breakthroughs happen due to rebel scientists and not the ones who say ‘yes boss’ for a smooth career progression ?

    I am glad your videos elicited a criticism from Slate & Universe today, both indirectly confirming the helical orbits of planets. This point needs to be mentioned in your future corrected video. Most people would have missed this point, jumped to conclusions based on their misleading headlines, without actually reading it fully.

  66. This is really quite brilliant. But if this premise is correct, which I’m immensely unqualified to dispute, then the possibility of time travel drops to infinitely impossible. Not only would you have to have a precise point in time to travel to; but your point of origin, and your target destination, physically speaking, could be thousands, if not millions, of miles apart. You’d have to be able to target the precise location, within the cosmos, relative to your current position, which could be nearly impossible to do.

    Not only would the whole “time is linear” thing have to be overcome, but the traveler would have to figure out a way to transport his/her matter not just across time, but the immense difference in physical distance as well.

    Sorry if this seems like rambling. But after watching the video, and trying to understand some of the science, my crazy brain jumped right to time travel.

    Thoughts?

  67. Thank you for doing this. Since 1990 when I first published my poster titled “Motion”, which The National Teachers association has been selling since then, I have been trying to make the astronomers and astrophysics aware of the earth’s helical motion. The poster depicts the motion of all three, the sun, earth, and moon, for three periods, a 29 day, a one month, and a one year. I use the poster in my video “Alan’s Discovery” on youtube https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=EFlzzm_sE3Y . The discovery I have made is that the earth is not tipped 23.5 degrees. The direct overhead of the sun goes above and below the equator because of two angles. The new angle is what I call The Zale Angle. It occurs because the earth moves ahead of the sun and behind the sun, as do all of the other planets. When the earth is ahead of the sun the direct overhead goes below the equator and above the equator when the earth goes behind the sun. A good measurement for The Zale Angle is 2.22 degrees therefore the earth is only tipped 21.28 degrees. On page 2 of my website http://www.alansthoughts.com/ are some papers that might help to understand my perspective and my conclusions. I do have Phd’s that agree with what I have concluded. Including my paper on http://www.alansthoughts.com/ .

  68. Over the years I’ve learned that the helical perspective is quite difficult for persons who have been thinking in a geocentric perspective all their lives. But it has many benefits. It enabled me to see that the earth is not tipped 23.5 degrees because the earth’s motion going ahead and behind the sun also moves the direct-overhead above and below the equator. That amount is 2.22 degrees so the tip is only 21.28 degrees. The two angles then lead to my being able to explain why nutation and precession occur. For an explanation of this understanding go to http://www.alansthoughts.com/ and on page 2 and read “Why The Earth Wobbles” paper. Most things in space are moving in a helical pattern, including photons. I hope this helps those interested in learning about the helical perspective. Email me your postal mail address at alan@alansthoughts.com and I will send you a copy of my Motion Poster.

  69. This isn’t anything new or remarkable. All you are doing is changing the frame of reference. You can choose any frame of reference to view the motion. If you are using something fixed to the sun, orbits are ellipses. If you are fixed to the galaxy, you’ll see the motion of the sun relative to the galaxy – but that doesn’t change anything, just your observation. This isn’t revolutionary; it is basic choice of reference frame.

    There is no “fixed” point in space – all observations must be made from a frame of reference we construct (mathematically). How you choose that reference frame determines how your measurements work out. The simplest observations of the solar system are made with the heliocentric model because it simplifies the math. If you are doing orbital calculations around the earth, it is convenient to use a reference frame of the earth. It isn’t more or less correct – it is just easier.

    You could try to sound just as revolutionary if you presented the mathematical calculations that NASA make for spaceships and satellites – and then say “wow – the earth actually goes around the sun so a geo-centric orbit is wrong – you should use a heliocentric model”. Yes, it is true that NASA could calculate orbits around the earth using a helix model as the earth goes around the sun, but it would be a lot harder and have no greater utility or accuracy; that’s why they calculate earth orbits relative to the earth. You can use any model you like; it just gets more complicated as you get further away from what you are calculating.

    And I suggest you don’t use “vortex” – a vortex is a rotation in a fluid – there is no fluid in space, unless you are bring back the theory of “ether”. Use the word “helix” to be more precise; it’s a path.

  70. (1) I have never come across anybody describing 2 birds as revolving around each, with talons locked. It is always described as spiralling down. Intelligent observations always take into account the motion along Z axis too. If you change the frame of reference, the birds are indeed revolving around each other in a circular orbit. But nobody reports it like that, do they ?

    (2) Just forget frame of reference for a minute. If planets left a trail of smoke behind them like planes in airshows, you will see helical paths, not elliptical or circular. Why not describe what is really happening, instead of taking creative liberty with frames of reference ?

    (3) If everything boils down to frames of reference, then why are we teaching that planets go around the sun ? Why not teach that everything goes around the earth ? Earth is the strongest point of reference and that is exactly what an earthling would observe with their eyes also ! Yet we are taught that this ancient idea is wrong.

    (4) Though David’s point is correct, he seems to mistakenly believe that helical orbits is common knowledge. It is not. If that were the case, DJ Sadhu’s videos would not attract the attention they are getting. Concept of helical orbits was never even mentioned in any of the science books i grew up with, in school and college, including todays books. Internet information is also suspiciously silent on this aspect.

    So, let us not simply dismiss it as a frame of reference or a simplified description. Fact is, the wrong concept is being taught. Earth does not return to same point after 365 days, as the elliptical orbit idea stupidly suggests. Thats the whole point of DJ Sadhu’s videos.

  71. I came here to point out that the “flat” model of the solar system is not wrong, it just chooses the sun as its frame of reference. I see now that many others have said similar things. I notice that many commenters (like Rob) don’t seem to know what they’re talking about but there are some who do so I won’t repeat them. My only question now is, you mention that the solar system is moving at 70000 kph but with respect to what? Frame of reference is everything when dealing with motion, particular in space. Despite what Vinny said, one cannot simply “forget” the frame of reference. Motion cannot be discussed without it.

  72. Oh, and I should mention that the video is beautiful and the beat has a really nice groove. I love to see things from new perspectives.

  73. Yeah, I understood the point. And it was well executed! I only mention it because the video says at the beginning that the flat model is “boring” and “wrong.”

    1. Sure. The terms “boring” and “wrong” are my emotional expression of how much the old model lacks. It just gives the wrong impression. The Frisbee Diagrams kind of take away the adventure of it all. I was amazed by the number of people who did not even know that our solar system is not stationary.

  74. Ah, I see. The perspective you shared in your video was definitely more interesting. Even knowing that the solar system isn’t stationary it was still cool to see it illustrated like that. Thanks for creating it!

  75. You all might enjoy learning more about what the helical perspective can teach you. If so go to
    https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=EFlzzm_sE3Y
    Also the earth does not wobble like atop. For more information on that go to http://alansthoughts.com/2.html and read the paper on Why the earth wobbles. You might find some of the other papers quite interesting also. The National Science Teachers Association has been selling my “MOTION’ poster for 20 years.

  76. @Alan Word docs? Thanks but no thanks. The video was interesting though. It seems to me that people keep wanting to say this or that model is wrong or the Earth moves at one speed and not another but all of that is relative. One isn’t right and the other wrong. One is relative to one thing and another to another. You said in the video that the Earth, at different times, moves faster and then slower than the sun. But that’s only relative to the galaxy. Relative to the sun, the speed of the Earth does not change. So it really depends on how we define it; how large we draw our system. If we take the entirety of Nature as our system then the Earth, and indeed all matter, is actually moving at the speed of light. The largest component vector of this velocity (by far) is in 4th dimension–time. This is why time slows down the faster one moves through the three physical dimensions. Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity covers all of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

    The same can be said about the Earth’s tilt. You say that the Earth is not tilted at 23.4 degrees and you’re right–relative to itself. But the Earth’s rotational axis is indeed tilted at 23.4 degrees relative to its orbital plane. It’s tilted at a different angle relative to the plane of the galaxy and a still different angle relative to some other galaxy.

    So my point is that you’re not wrong but neither are they. It’s all a matter of perspective. 🙂

  77. Dave
    From the sun’s perspective if you construct a plane through the center of the sun and perpendicular to the direction the sun is moving, I call it the reference plane, the earth passes thorough that plane twice a year, April 4th and Oct. 6th. It is that motion above and below the reference plane that contributes 2.22degrees to the movement of the direct-overheads above and below the earth’s equator. This is how we now know that earth’s rotating axis is only tipped 21.28degrees.

  78. Alan,
    So you’re saying that they’ve made a mistake in calculating the angle of the earth’s axis to its orbital plane? I suppose that’s possible. I understand the concepts involved with these things but I have to trust others to actually do the math. I fail to see what the direction of the sun’s motion relative to the galaxy has to do with the angle of the earth’s axis relative to its orbital plane though. The sun does not move relative to the earth.

  79. Dave,
    I do not use the earth’s orbiting plane in any of my analysis because to me the earth does not orbit in a plane it orbits in a helical pattern. The sun orbits the center of a galaxy and I use its motion to establish a frame of reference. As I was told by a Prof at MIT the sun pulls the planets through the galaxy. So when it gets behind the sun pulls it in the direction the sun is moving and as I said before on Oct.6th it starts to go ahead of the sun, at this point in its cycle the earth is at its maximum velocity in the direction the sun is traveling,and now it is starting to be slowed down by the sun. These velocities of the earth of which I am speaking are all in the direction the is traveling, not its orbiting velocity. Jan. 5th is when it is furthest ahead and the earth’s velocity is the same as the sun’s. It’s slowest velocity is on April 4th and it gets back to the sun’s velocity on July 5th. I know this is quite difficult for persons who have spent years thinking from a geocentric perspective only.

  80. Alan,
    Respectfully, this is not correct. What we’re talking about is a heliocentric perspective, not a geocentric one, and it’s the only perspective that’s relevant when discussing the earth’s axial tilt. From a geocentric perspective the earth has no tilt, no wobble, no velocity–it does not move. From a heliocentric perspective the earth is tilted at some angle (they say 23.4 degrees), moves with a constant angular velocity and orbits the sun in a 2D plane. From a galaxy-centric perspective the sun orbits the galactic core in a sine-wave pattern (Not a helix as the sun only moves up and down relative to the plane of the galaxy. It does not move closer to and then farther away from the core just as the earth does not move closer to and farther away from the sun and for the same reason.) The professor at MIT that told you the sun pulls the planets through the through the galaxy is correct and the planets do trace a helical pattern through the galaxy as they go but this is exactly because they are orbiting the sun in 2D planes as the sun moves through the galaxy. The motion of the sun through the galaxy has no bearing on the motion of the earth around the sun.

    So when discussing the earth’s axial tilt we do not have to consider the sun’s motion. If what you say were true then your analysis would still be incorrect because if the sun’s motion through the galaxy is relevant then the galaxy’s motion through the universe would also be relevant and you have not taken that into account.

  81. Today Dec. 21st is the start of the winter solstice. The winter solstice is a manifestation of the existence of the Zale Angle. The Zale angle is one of the two angles that contribute to the direct-overhead of the sun going 23.5degrees above and below the earth’s equator. The Zale Angle occurs because the earth orbits the sun in the same manner that all of the other planets do. In 1992 a prof. at MIT agreed that all of the other planets go ahead of the sun and fall behind the sun as the sun pulls them through the galaxy. When the earth goes ahead of the sun the direct-overhead goes below the equator and when the earth goes ahead of the sun the direct-overhead goes above the equator. This action causes what I call the Zale Angle. The Zale Angle contributes 2.22degrees the motion of the direct-overhead. Thus the earth is only tipped 21.28 degrees. So today the tip angle is starting to move the direct-overhead back toward the equator but the Zale Angle is still trying to move it toward the South Pole. On Jan.5th the Zale Angle will reverse its direction and start moving the direct-overhead back toward the equator. Thus the reason the solstice occurs is because the contributions of each of these two angles are almost equal and they are each trying to move the direct-overhead in opposite directions.

  82. A correction to my previous Dec 21st comment midway thru I used go ahead twice in the same sentance my mistake. Below it is corrected.
    Today Dec. 21st is the start of the winter solstice. The winter solstice is a manifestation of the existence of the Zale Angle. The Zale angle is one of the two angles that contribute to the direct-overhead of the sun going 23.5degrees above and below the earth’s equator. The Zale Angle occurs because the earth orbits the sun in the same manner that all of the other planets do. In 1992 a prof. at MIT agreed that all of the other planets go ahead of the sun and fall behind the sun as the sun pulls them through the galaxy. When the earth goes ahead of the sun the direct-overhead goes below the equator and when the earth goes behind the sun the direct-overhead goes above the equator. This action causes what I call the Zale Angle. The Zale Angle contributes 2.22degrees the motion of the direct-overhead. Thus the earth is only tipped 21.28 degrees. So today the tip angle is starting to move the direct-overhead back toward the equator but the Zale Angle is still trying to move it toward the South Pole. On Jan.5th the Zale Angle will reverse its direction and start moving the direct-overhead back toward the equator. Thus the reason the solstice occurs is because the contributions of each of these two angles are almost equal and they are each trying to move the direct-overhead in opposite directions.

  83. Alan,
    Picture this: you’re on a space station in a room with no windows. In the center of the room is a candle and you are moving around the candle in a circle. Does the movement of the space station through space make any difference in the angle that the light from the candle hits you?

    Of course not.

    Or to make it even more simple, imagine you’re driving in your car. Does the car’s speed or direction change your relationship to the car?

    Clearly it does not.

    It’s the same way with the solar system. I know it can seem complicated because of the scale of the solar system and the fact that we can’t directly observe it with our own eyes but it’s really a very simple concept. The fact that the sun is moving through the galaxy and pulling planets along with it doesn’t have any bearing on the relationship of the planets to the sun.

  84. Actually, this too, is incorrect. You, too, are thinking linearly. This all depends upon the actual relativity of the viewer. Yes, this particular parallax view is possible, but only likely if you are curving in space time, parallel to the directed motion you placed Sol in. Our solar system is moving in a clearly defined spiral with several billion other stars in our Milky Way. And our entire Galaxy itself is moving – axially – in a direction the central “black Hole” of ours is pushing it through. In the not too distant future, several billion of our puny years away, our Galaxy will be colliding with our next nearest Galaxy, Andromeda, and this too will re-define specific directionality of our travels in regard to the three dimensions we understand. Life is not a vortex, in the fourth dimension we acknowledge presence as a string with a defined start and a certain ending (for now anyway). There is nothing else. In the all too distant real future all galaxies, all nebula, all elementary fogs and matter/energy will in itself return to collapsing upon itself , once again then creating the big bang from whence we came. This has to happen because the energy and matter of the small forces must combine with a Grand Unification Theory, just to appease our obsessive / compulsive modern physicist dreamers with their (totally incorrect ) notions of multiverses, parallel universes, multi-dimensional systems and planets -just to understand their incorrect mathematical equations. Plato was right about us being in a cave seeing shadows on the wall and never understanding exactly what it means…. Thats whats so sad about INTERSTELLAR. No matter or energy combines in/near/around a black hole. All of what we recall as reality (Turing) must cease to exist so that the strong forces can combine as gravity requires. Everything is always relative to a specific viewpoint in X,Y, Z axis and with then a specific time coordinate added. That time coordinate too, must be relational, otherwise RELATIVITY cannot apply.

    1. Sure, every viewpoint is relative, speed is relative. Just let me try and shift from one relative viewpoint (local space, flat disk solar system) to the next (external view, time included, helical paths). I just can’t help but notice the similarity in helical patterns everywhere in life 🙂

  85. djsadhu
    I agree 100%! Eeverything from photon motion to the suns motion is in a helical pattern. Yet it is rarely spoken of? To me it does help to explain many aspects of physics.

  86. quentin parker
    Thanks for trying but your perspective is to sophisticated for me and mine is to simple for you. Sorry! What I said back on Dec 17 is correct and no one has ever SHOWN it to be wrong. People say I’m wrong but they can not show me where I am wrong.

  87. Alan, I can’t make heads or tails of what quentin parker is saying but the trouble with your perspective isn’t that it’s too simple. It’s that it’s plain wrong. The sun’s motion does not have any impact on the angular velocity of the planets and certainly not their direction *as they relate to the sun.* If it did they would cease to orbit the sun and we would all die because it would move on without us. Have you ever seen one of those coin funnel things they have in malls and places like that were you drop a coin in the receptor and it spins faster and faster until it falls into the bin below? Can you imagine dropping a coin into that having it speed up and slow down and move up the slope and back down it? Of course not. Why? Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics: conservation of energy. For a change in the coin’s motion external energy would have to be applied to it. It would have to be artificially accelerated. For the same reason the planets cannot slow down and speed up and they cannot increase and decrease the radius of their orbits. That said, with respect to the galaxy, they do trace a helical pattern because they orbit the sun and the sun orbits the galactic core. Imagine spinning a yo-yo around your head as you walk around a tree. From your perspective the yo-yo’s angular velocity does not change, it stays a fixed distance from your head, it’s direction and speed do not change. This is all that matters when talking about the sun’s angle to the earth.

    I have now SHOWN what you say to be wrong multiple times. I have posted links to credible astrophysicists supporting my position. If you have really talked to scientists at MIT about this then I’m confident they have shown you that you were wrong as well. You may choose not to listen but that doesn’t make what you say true.

    Also, photo motion is not helical. Photons have wave properties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

  88. Dave
    I am not speaking of the orbiting velocity about the sun. I am speaking of the earth’s velocity in the direction the sun is moving through the galaxy. What might help you is seeing the poster I use in the following youtube video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFlzzm_sE3Y

    The poster I use in the video has been being sold at the Nation Science Teacher’s Ass. for twenty years.
    The helical motion as shown of the moon orbiting the earth and the earth orbiting the sun are wave motions. The are transverse sine wave motions.

  89. Alan,
    I did see your poster when I watched your video and it looked, to me, like an accurate depiction of the path the sun and planets trace as they orbit the galaxy. But this has no bearing on the solstices.

  90. Dave
    First thank you for your kind efforts in trying to understand what I am trying to convey.
    . There are a couple of steps to get from the video to the effect on the solstice. The video enplanes that the earth goes ahead and behind, thus the Zale Angle. Going ahead and behind contributes to the direct overhead (DOH) movement. The cycles for each contributor to the DOH are not in sync. The tips contribution peaks Dec. 21st. The Zale Angle contribution doesn’t peak until Jan. 5th. So they are in conflict as to how they are each trying to move the DOH. The tip angle starts trying to move the DOH north toward the equator, while the Zale Angle is still trying to move the DOH south. To the naked eye the DOH appears to be the same for those four days, but there is a slight change taking place each day. So I am told. I have never made the measurement, I am not an astronomer.

  91. Lets keep it simple. Our solar system is traveling at roughly a 60º angle in the direction of our movement through our MW spiral. We are also moving slightly upward (and downward) from this plain of the spiral, @ 25,000LY in distance – and downward, BUT this should, by most calculations only happen @ 4 times per “orbit” around the center (our own MW black hole!) Where we are located, the “thickness of our spiral wave reaches @ 100,000 LYs and this cannot change without the existing gravitational methodology modifying itself. The stronger of the forces will always pull our solar mass back towards the center of our MW spiral swirl. Always. However with the mass inertia of the upward vertical deviation, the correction requires a downward deviation as well.

    However, there can be no inward or outward of the helical spiral DJ is showing because mathematically you would need to be adding energy and subtracting energy to speed up our rotational vector for this to occur.

    Unless there is some other force central to the Helix he shows at work, this is mathematically impossible. Like the shuttle, losing velocity will decrease the orbit, and gaining velocity will increase an orbit. We, our solar system, has no such propulsion unit, therefor the helical twisting DJ provides is patently false.

    The reasons for our amplitude deviations toward the center plain of our swirling disc are possible for three causes.
    1. our initial mass capture into the MW swirl still has vector forces acting upon our rotational forces of capture
    2. other near by pass collisions of other, large star systems fly-bys millions of millions of years ago may have enacted the deviation
    3. Dark matter “densities” as anomalies may have affected this pull
    My conjecture is more about the axis of our solar system at 60º to the plain of our MW. I believe it is entirely possible that not only is this solar disc of ours tumbling, forward or reverse head over toe, but that also we actually may be rotating along an axis @ perpendicular to our direction of travel. It is MORE likely that we are rotating along some other vector of forces than that our plain is staying at the 60º windshield angle around our center.

    What DJ has also obviously depicted incorrectly is that our planets are following our sun in the direction as shown. All our planets have this equal speed relative to any other viewpoint outside of our solar system disc, therefore the plain of our rotation is at the exact same plain along our disc as our sun is, not following behind. For more information on this go to Phil Plait’s BAD ASTRONOMY answers to some of DJs depictions, his website http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/index.html
    for clarification.

    What I applaud, even though slightly incorrect, is DJs effort to address these things visually, which garner so much dialogue and response. It’s not that we fail, but what we learn from this, which matters! Thx DJ, great work!

  92. Lets keep it simple. Our solar system is traveling at roughly a 60º angle in the direction of our movement through our MW spiral. We are also moving slightly upward (and downward) from this plain of the spiral, @ 25,000LY in distance – and downward, BUT this should, by most calculations only happen @ 4 times per “orbit” around the center (our own MW black hole!) Where we are located, the “thickness of our spiral wave reaches @ 100,000 LYs and this cannot change without the existing gravitational methodology modifying itself. The stronger of the forces will always pull our solar mass back towards the center of our MW spiral swirl. Always. However with the mass inertia of the upward vertical deviation, the correction requires a downward deviation as well.

    However, there can be no inward or outward of the helical spiral DJ is showing because mathematically you would need to be adding energy and subtracting energy to speed up our rotational vector for this to occur.

    Unless there is some other force central to the Helix he shows at work, this is mathematically impossible. Like the shuttle, losing velocity will decrease the orbit, and gaining velocity will increase an orbit. We, our solar system, has no such propulsion unit, therefor the helical twisting DJ provides is patently false.

    The reasons for our amplitude deviations toward the center plain of our swirling disc are possible for three causes.
    1. our initial mass capture into the MW swirl still has vector forces acting upon our rotational forces of capture
    2. other near by pass collisions of other, large star systems fly-bys millions of millions of years ago may have enacted the deviation
    3. Dark matter “densities” as anomalies may have affected this pull
    My conjecture is more about the axis of our solar system at 60º to the plain of our MW. I believe it is entirely possible that not only is this solar disc of ours tumbling, forward or reverse head over toe, but that also we actually may be rotating along an axis @ perpendicular to our direction of travel. It is MORE likely that we are rotating along some other vector of forces than that our plain is staying at the 60º windshield angle around our center.

    What DJ has also obviously depicted incorrectly is that our planets are following our sun in the direction as shown. All our planets have this equal speed relative to any other viewpoint outside of our solar system disc, therefore the plain of our rotation is at the exact same plain along our disc as our sun is, not following behind. For more information on this go to Phil Plait’s BAD ASTRONOMY answers to some of DJs depictions, his website http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/index.html
    for clarification.

    What I applaud, even though slightly incorrect, is DJs effort to address these things visually, which garner so much dialogue and response. It’s not that we fail, but what we learn from this, which matters! Thx DJ, great work!

  93. Lets keep it simple.

    Our solar system is traveling at roughly a 60º angle in the direction of our movement through our MW spiral. We are also moving slightly upward (and downward) from this plain of the spiral, @ 25,000LY in distance – and downward.

    BUT this should, by most calculations, only happen @ 4 times per “orbit” around the center (our own MW black hole!) Where we are located, the “thickness of our spiral wave reaches @ 100,000 LYs and this cannot change without the existing gravitational methodology modifying itself. The stronger of the forces will always pull our solar mass back towards the center of our MW spiral swirl. Always.

    However with the mass “inertia” of the upward ‘vertical’ deviation along our rotational axis, the correction requires a downward deviation as well.

    However, there can be no inward- or outward deviation of the helical spiral DJ is showing, because mathematically you would need to be adding energy -and subtracting energy- somehow, to speed up our rotational vector for this to occur.

    Unless there is some other force central to the Helix of our rotation he shows at work, this is mathematically impossible. Like the shuttle, losing velocity by rocket burn opposite our direction of travel will decrease the orbit, and gaining velocity will increase an orbit distance. We, our solar system, has obviously no such intrinsic ‘propulsion unit”, nope, even the mighty photons themselves will NOT DO THIS- therefor the helical twisting DJ provides is patently false.

    The reasons for our amplitude deviations from and to the center plain of our swirling disc are possible for three possible causes:
    1. our initial mass capture into the MW swirl, like all others, still has previous vector energy forces acting upon our rotational forces of capture
    2. other near-by past collisions of other, large star systems fly-bys, millions of millions of years ago in our direct vicinity may have enacted the deviation
    3. Dark matter “densities” throughout space as anomalies may have affected this pull (OK, who is to say?)

    My conjecture is more about the axis of our solar system at 60º to the plain of our MW. I believe it is entirely possible that not only is this solar disc of ours tumbling, forward -or reverse- head over toe, but that also we actually may be rotating along an axis @ perpendicular to our direction of travel. It is MORE likely that we are rotating along some other vector of forces than that our plain is staying at the 60º ‘windshield’ angle around our MW center.

    What DJ has also obviously depicted incorrectly is that our planets are “following” our sun in the direction as shown. All our planets have this equal speed, relative to any other viewpoint outside of our solar system disc, therefore the plain of our rotation is at the exact same plain along our disc as our sun is, with our planets not following behind.

    For more information on this go to Phil Plait’s BAD ASTRONOMY answers to some of DJs depictions, his website http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/index.html
    for clarification.

    What I applaud, even though slightly incorrect, is DJs effort to address these things visually, which garner so much dialogue and response. It’s not that we fail, but what we learn from this, which matters! Thx DJ, great work!

  94. I agree. With DJ Sadhu’s knowledge combined with this knowledge DJ Sadhu should be able to create a perfectly correct animation as well, which would be really awesome!

  95. at the end of the day eerh! bottom line eerh! whatever in order for this to be precise we’d have to know the shape of the border of the universe and its’ movement in relation(?) to us to make sense of the shebang.oh yes and what’s after it as well.

  96. This is some kind of “mambo-jumbo” Indian physics! 😀

    Dumb and ridiculous!

    I hates me to explain why, I have a feeling that you wouldn’t understand anyway… 🙂

    1. I am amazed at how narrow-minded, stiff-necked and sourly orthodox the “scientific” establishment can be in his own homeland, India. Many theories once held as irrefutable truths have later fallen into oblivion due to science moving forward! Science can be called such if and only if it remains compatible with evolution. What an embarrassing remark Bole…if you had just added some substance to the thread (apart from proper Grammar)…pity.

    2. DJ,

      you really just don’t get IT. This observation of yours depends entirely upon a specific RELATIVE VIEWPOINT. The helical model for our solar system just is not correct. There is no “lag” in the orbits of our planets relative in direction to the direction our solar system is moving through space. It is clearly measureable that each planet has a wobble, yes, minutely so in the plane of our system, relative to our satellites too, but there is no lag, as measured as you show in your model.

      Understand this, it is relational, to what? A still point inside our Milky Way? A still point in space in the orbit of our “wing” arm of stellar systems inside the MW ? A still point in the direction and speed of our Milky Way expanding “outward” beyond, what ? A still [point of our universe, in relationship to all galaxies expanding outward from an arbitrary, central point (- there is none) ?

      I hope you see my point. There is only relational observation, anywhere, and this depends upon the observers viewpoint, relational speed and relational direction.

      1. Sure, I agree it’s for the bigger part about “relative viewpoint”. But why chose the stationary frisbee model over this helical one? That’s what I don’t get.

        1. For simplicity and parsimony. The Earth centric is not wrong either and it was easier for awhile. Yours has more complexity so can be harder for others to accept. Much of the criticism is that it’s not accurate but no model is ever 100% accurate or it wouldn’t be a model. Your model is very interesting. I like the visual aspect and complexity, well done.

          1. David:
            Since we are doing our observing from the earth, geocentric is what we actually see. There fore as a construct it natural we should use it. However things such as my discovery as seen on you tube ( youtube.com/watch?v=EFlzzm_sE3Y&google_comment_id=z12ctvhwpm3mhp5jo04celpbzp3hz12o1a4&google_view_type#gpluscomments ) can not be seen from a geocentric perspective.

  97. Ещё 48 лет назад винтовое движение планет я описал в статье, которую послал в журнал “Техника молодёжи”, но ответа так и не получил. в 2004 году
    я её выложил на свой сайт borodino2004.narod.ru, но домен narod.ru закрылся и я переместил статью на новый личный сайт http://азбогаведаю.рф (http://xn--80aaacgejhn5euj.xn--p1ai/). Вы можете ознакомиться с ней http://xn--80aaacgejhn5euj.xn--p1ai/Mir.html. Непосредственно о винтовом движении описано на стр 4 и 5. Между прочим я до этих пор храню первоисточники. Сейчас мне 68 лет и очень бы хотелось перевести эту статью на английский язык и вообще нашлись бы толковые ребята, чтобы совместно отстоять приоритет России. У кого есть возможности сделайте репост.

    1. Google translation: “More 48 years ago helical motion of the planets I described in an article sent to the journal “Techniques of Youth” , but no reply received. 2004
      I posted it on my site borodino2004.narod.ru, but the domain narod.ru closed and I moved to a new article personal website http: //azbogavedayu.rf (http://xn--80aaacgejhn5euj.xn--p1ai/). You can read it http://xn--80aaacgejhn5euj.xn--p1ai/Mir.html. Directly on the helical motion is described on page 4 and 5. By the way , I have kept until now primary sources. Now I am 68 years old and would very much like to translate this article into English and all the guys there would be sensible to jointly defend the priority of Russia . Who has the opportunity make repost .

    2. Всё очень просто, попробуйте ощутить себя на планете которая мчится сквозь бесконечность, каждую минуту врываясь в нечто новое, непознанное. Совсем другое ощущение себя в окружающем пространстве? ))) Зачем это рабовладельцам? куда эффективнее ощущения клетки, замкнутости, освоение космоса? зачем?! у нас новые Iphone 6,7,8,9…

      нет рабства безнадежней тех рабов кто мнит себя свободным от оков.

      1. translated: “It’s very simple, try to feel the world is hurtling through infinity, every minute breaking into something new and unknown. It is quite another feeling in the surrounding area? ))) What is the slave owners? feeling much more effective cell isolation, space exploration? why ?! we have new Iphone 6,7,8,9 … no hopeless slavery those slaves who imagines himself to be free from the shackles.”

  98. Great motion simulation… The Solar system actualy have an helicoidal kind of movement on it’s galactic orbit, movement enduced by planetary system but I do not think it is observable from a vision outside (above or below) the galaxy like you present in 2nd part. If it where like that it meaning there in/on the center of the transversal section of the helicoid (witch should be a disk) it is located an large gravitational mass at the distance from the center of the Sun equal with the radius of that disk witch it means (again) entire solar system is on orbit around that gravitationaly central mass and that mass actualy are orbiting the center of the galaxy!… anyway, like I wrote, great graphic!

  99. No – our solar system is inclined to the plane of travel in our galaxy, I think @ 61º
    so your heliocentric model fails, because there is little symmetrical correlation of our spin axis to that geometry of our Milky Way.
    In addition, the radial spin axis of our solar system does not rotate around the center of our galaxy either. It remains in a slight wobble of angular declination.
    Your basic flaw is assigning heliocentricity to a Milky Way symmetry. It’s not there.

  100. The Helical explanation is correct. Any time I see someone using the word wobble it usually means they don’t know what is really going on. Heliocentricity is the correct pattern for every thing that is moving in space .

  101. وَٱلشَّمْسُ تَجْرِى لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَّهَا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ ٱلْعَزِيزِ ٱلْعَلِيمِ

  102. Olá! Eu divulguei o vídeo de vocês em meu blog e em minha pagina no youtube. Acontece que alguém reclamou os direitos autorais e o youtube me tirou o vídeo da minha pagina! Gostaria de saber se há alguma restrição para o uso do vídeo e a minha intenção foi somente divulgar este trabalho. Não fiz nenhuma edição ou corte, o nome de vosso site fica visível o tempo todo. Será que “eu” cometi algum erro por engano?

    1. Olá . Eu entendo a sua intenção. Fico feliz que você aprecia o vídeo. O compartilhamento de vídeo original ou vinculação ou pode obviamente. Mas não copiar ou re -upload sem perguntar. Eu também lhe enviou uma mensagem , que não foi respondido.

  103. I don’t know about the helical model, but I found it interesting that the planets movement in the fourth dimension (i.e in time) looks the same as electromagnetic wave oscillations.
    I know this sounds crazy, but maybe photons of different wavelengths are a collections of tiny massless particles that are orbiting a central point of gravity.

  104. Max:
    I think there are two parallel helical paths one electric the other magnetic. They each push and pull the other along through space.

  105. Thank you for engaging your viewers/readers in this thoughtful discussion. The Helical Model is well within the realm of logic. The notion that our solar system remains in a static position is illogical. Of course it is our nature to question. I believe that human curiosity is what makes our species truly distinct (though some theologians would blame us for “eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” our “original sin,” but how open a mind is one that unquestionably accepts theology and asks not about an alternate explanation of existence?). So let us challenge orthodoxy, not just from the standpoint of the physics of our solar system and its relationship to a spinning sun on an unknown or unknowable trajectory (we think we know but our powers of observation fall short of complete certainty), as it drags along through it gravitational pull the objects that we collectively call our solar system. Consider the so-called “big bang” (poor choice of names as there is no “bang” in a vacuum). The contention is that we have an “expanding universe.” OK, at least what we can observe appears to be moving away (relative to our vantage point). Yet, just how far can we observe? Even our very best optics and radio telemetry can only measure just so far. At what point does a flashlight in the dark lose its illumination? Is its delivery of light infinite? or does it fall short? Look at a shaft of sunlight penetrating an otherwise darkened room as you shake the dust from a rug. At some point the opacity of the particles in the air deter the further penetration of the beam. Similarly, our observations of the galaxy (or galaxies) will be deterred by the countless obstacles that will block the view (we see from the Kepler satellite data how our view through that keyhole keeps presenting discoveries of previously undiscovered planets, some similar even to Earth). What is the measure of opacity then in space? How much is out there? How deep into space can we observe? At what point does our ability to measure stop us from observing further? Can we conclude that space is finite only because our ability to observe is also finite? How do we know if at the point of our own limitations to measure there were not other “big bangs” that have occurred or are yet to occur which will send matter expanding away from that point or those points and hurl it in the direction contrary to the one claimed by the advocates for the conventional “big bang” explanation prevailing among many astronomers here now? Funny thing about orthodoxy is that those most convinced of their certainty about a theory all too often must consider new evidence. The world is flat. No, actually, we discovered it’s a sphere. The Earth is at the center of our solar system. No, actually it is in an orbit around the sun. We conclude there is an expanding universe and everything started with a “big bang” 14 billion years ago. Really? Was it on a Tuesday afternoon at 2:14 PM? Was that Eastern Time? or Central? Has hubris ever been taken to greater extremes? How dare anyone challenge this orthodoxy? And where exactly did this “big bang” occur? In Kansas City on the corner 4th Street and Vine? This explains all? Nothing preceded it? Nothing occurred elsewhere at some other point? Time is finite? Space is not infinite? Is the human mind so constrained that an alternate explanation cannot possibly be correct? Au contraire mis amigos.

    1. Jim:
      Your comment on he flashlight brought to mind a thirty year old perspective on light. I think the red shift of light from distant objects is most likely due to energy loss not velocity moving away.
      Alan

  106. Yes its true if you observe at the point of beyond our solar system’ seven time away you can see this helic model movements… Or else place the camera at voyager satalite point and observe the movement or record it for ten years then play this record in your home tv in fast foward play then you will agree that dj sadhu model is absolutely true!!! Jai hind
    By
    Prashanth Venkatasway

  107. The following site leads to a paper explaining the best data known, to date, about the sun’s orbit around the galactic center.

    http://www.academicpress.com/refer/solar/Contents/chap1.htm

    Now, to address the real story here.

    1) Yes, the sun and the planets orbit the galaxy in a complex helical dance.

    2) To be precise, all evidence shows that the planets AND the sun orbit the center of mass of the solar system (deep within the sun, to be sure, but not at its center), irrespective of any other frame of reference.

    3) The vector of motion, relative to the Local Standard of Rest (the mean orbit around the galaxy of the local stars (LSR)), is approximately 20km/s in the direction of RA 18hrs 30mins and Dec 60°.

    This vector has us moving up, currently, above the mean plane of the disk, and inward towards Perigalacticon (closest approach to the galactic center) some 8.4kpc (kilo parsecs). We are close to Perigalacticon, as our current position is roughly 8.5kpc (roughly 26,500LY) and, best estimate, ~20PC above the mean plane of the galactic disk.

    4) The sun’s movement above and below the mean plane of the galactic disk, has an amplitude of roughly 70pc, with a periodicity of between 50-65Myrs (Million years).

    The motion inward and outward carries us from Perigalacticon (~8.4kpc) to Apgalacticon (~9.7kpc), and back again, with a periodicity of roughly160Myr. Approximately 1 and a half times per galactic year.

    Because of the differing mass of stars contained within the 2 different radii, the orbit is only roughly elliptical.

    5) Because the plane of the ecliptic (mean plane of the solar system) is NOT perpendicular to the velocity vector, yes, the planets do, for half of their orbits, lead the sun in its orbit. For the other half, they follow it.

    If you have any comments, or corrections, WITH corroborating data, please email me at rodger_young@hotmail.com

    Respectfully,

    Rodger Young
    Amateur Astronomer and Astrocartographer

    1. Great Roger and thank you,
      Now can we confirm that the Earth enter the space where the Sun use to be every 6 months? And this statement would be the same with the other planets? Moreover we enter the same space vacated by other planets at times?
      If yes then how can we calculate and find the times we pass through the same space that was vacated by let us say the Sun ?
      Thank you
      vasile

  108. I forgot to add, the velocity vector of the LSR is ~200km/s in the direction RA 11hrs, 55mins Dec 52°.

    Remember the vector I stated for the sun’s velocity is relative to the LSR. For the sun’s individual velocity vector, you must add th 2 vectors.

Leave a Reply to Rodger Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *